WILD BILL
Ending the War Over Wilderness
By Bill Schneider, 2-07-07
In the old days, before wolf reintroduction, Wilderness used to be the “W” word, so let’s leave Brother Wolf behind and go back to our roots, the fifty-year old controversy coming out of attempts to preserve the last blank spots on the map in the New West. All the howling over wolves of late has drowned out the debate over Wilderness, but that will change soon.
With the new BlueGreen Congress at work, Wilderness advocates will be dusting off proposed legislation shelved for years and introducing it. The resulting debate might challenge the decimal level we’ve heard lately from the fight over how many wolves we should allow in the New West.
Also, I fear, we’ll bloody ourselves in these fights and once again end up with nothing but bruises. Sadly, this has been the norm, ending up with no solution and making the controversy over the use of our last roadless lands seem endless.
But now, we have a way to quickly end the war for Wilderness and move on. Can we do it?
As announced in a companion article, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) will, with at least 187 co-sponsors, introduce the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act of 2007 (NREPA), which would designate as Wilderness most of the remaining roadless lands in the Northern Rockies, mostly in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, but edging into far eastern Oregon and Washington.
NREPA, or as named by its founders, “the wildest bill on the hill,” is more than a Wilderness bill. You can read a detailed explanation here, but briefly, in addition to designating 20,572,147 acres of Wilderness, it adds two units to our National Park System, protects 1,810 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, safeguards against habitat fragmentation by establishing a system of Biological Linkage Corridors to connect the region’s core wildlands and establishes 1,022,769 acres of Wildland Restoration Areas meant to create jobs by restoring damage caused by unwise resource extraction practices.
Sounds like a lot, right? And it is, but keep in mind that we have 193 million acres of national forests and 250 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land in this country, which means this bill covers about five percent of it. Or compared to the 315 million acres in the five-state region, this bill protects less than one percent of it. Setting aside one percent sounds like a reasonable price to pay to end the Wilderness debate.
When you hear politicos and industry reps on the podium talking about the “need for balance,” please keep these figures in mind. If we designate all remaining roadless land as Wilderness, we still wouldn’t be close to any definition of balance because at the end of the day, 95 percent or more of our federal lands will be non-wilderness.
We did it once before, back in 1980. It was called the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and it ended the great debate over protecting wild Alaska. But that was 27 years ago, and that was Alaska. And of course, Jimmy Carter was President. Can we do it again under our current political climate?
I think we can. For starters, this five-state region is about 90 percent of the size of Alaska, so we aren’t dealing with too much difference in total land area, and the Alaska land bill protected three times as much acreage, a whooping 79.5 million acres, which makes NREPA almost seem like a conservative approach. Even if you pull out western Oregon and Washington (not included in the bill), the legislation doesn’t seem unreasonable.
The primary barrier, of course, will not be convincing Congress NREPA is a baby step toward achieving balance in use of federal lands, but getting it signed into law. George W. Bush and his key agency appointees are anti-Wilderness to the core, but we have one advantage we didn’t have in Alaska. Everybody is anxious to have the Wilderness debate over, even enviros who could lose their jobs, so perhaps that dynamic could be the tipping point.
Interestingly, the architects of the bill, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (AWR) briefly re-named NREPA the Rockies Prosperity Act, but members bolted on that idea and wanted to stick to the original name to emphasize the original purpose--to preserve the “last great expanse of native biodiversity.” I can see their point, calling a rock a rock instead of a job-creating rock, but is this politically astute?
I understand the zeal and need to protect biodiversity, but let’s face it, selling biodiversity is a tough job. Perhaps we should take a page from the great Alaska victory and call it something like the Northern Rockies National Interest Lands Conservation Act. It fits.
But whatever it ends up being called, this bill is exactly the beacon Wilderness advocates need. They’ve been starved for decades, like an army without a flag.
And you would think that a bill with 187 co-sponsors (35 percent of the U.S. House of Representative) would easily pass, but take a look at the heavily democratic list. Not a single representative from Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. As close to the Northern Rockies we get are two reps from Oregon, one from Washington, and two from Colorado, all democrats, and all hailing from urban areas--Denver, Portland, Salem, and Seattle. No sponsor has one single acre of his or her district included in the bill.
But that’s another similarity with the Alaska lands bill, which was strongly opposed by all political leaders in that state, including some very powerful senators. Yet, it still passed, giving us a precedent.
In a telephone interview, Mike Garrity, executive director of AWR, said his group was working hard to get sponsors from the northern Rockies but no takers yet. This is what I call a sad commentary, and it means the legislation will have a hard time getting hearings, let alone a yes-or-no vote, especially if it passes to the Senate. And even if it squeaks through the Senate, it probably faces a veto when it reaches the White House, so the margin needs to be veto-proof.
Let’s hope Congress can view these federal lands as truly being in the national interest and abandon its protocol of letting the local representative call the shots. Even better, of course, would be for one or two of our esteemed representatives in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, or even eastern Oregon or Washington, to have an open mind on the Wilderness issue and the backbone to sponsor the bill so we can have a democratic process with hearings and a vote on this national interest legislation. Is this too much to ask? To stop using protocol to block fair consideration of an important issue facing all people in the New West?
And one more thing. I certainly hope all Wilderness advocates can get on board and support NREPA instead of getting competitive, as they have in the past. This only splits the constituency, which only plays into the hands of those who want “balance.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
These things need to be thoroughly discussed on a local basis, not in NYC.
Where is your proof of this? If you mean the Allard & Crapo types, of course not. I believe the bandwagon is overflowing on this issue.
"Not a single representative from Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. As close to the Northern Rockies we get are two reps from Oregon, one from Washington, and two from Colorado, all democrats, and all hailing from urban areas--Denver, Portland, Salem, and Seattle. "
Marion: "Them liberal enviroment socialist want us all to live in caves and eat mud".
Big Oil Excec: "Your so enlightened Marion I love reading your posts".
I did not see big (or little for that matter) oil mentioned in the articles. Is there oil in the areas mentioned?
Roads allow firefighters to get in to put out the fires that occur because timbering is no longer allowed and the beetles kill the forests, which then catch fire.
I'm for expanding Wilderness in certain cases but this plan is ridiculous. Way too far!
I agree with Amy. I hope Marion continues to be a spokesman for the right. The logic ad absurdum helps explain the last election.
I don't always agree with Marion, but then again, I never learn much from people with whom I agree 100 percent, I just get reinforcment and affirmation. Marion, you have a thick skin and a good heart, and I hope you stay in the fray.
Although I'd like to see more protected areas, I don't get why AWR keeps introducing NREPA. Hasn't this bill been introduced in every Congress since 1993?
Maybe they skipped a few sessions, but it's always the same outcome. Has NREPA ever made it out of committee? Ever made it to the Senate? Seems like a case of beating one's head against the wall. Maybe it's time for a different strategy (unbundle NREPA and go state-by-state)?
Yes, 187 supporters in the House is a big number, and it must mean something. Why, unless they're sincerely expecting it to get somewhere, do these Representatives support this bill?
One hypothesis: supporting a wilderness bill far from the home district is a low-cost way of showing one's constituents that you're doing good stuff in DC. This bill is unlikely to have any detractors in Manhattan, NY, and is likely very appealing to affluent, conservation minded voters there.
(Go to Congresswoman Maloney's site [maloney.house.gov] and take a look at the map of the 14th District -- some of the most expensive real estate on the planet).
I don't want to imply that Americans on the coasts shouldn't have any say about the public lands. I am saying that their interest may be fleeting, and that they ought to really inform themselves and understand all facets of these issues, rather than just tossing out opinions and making demands.
I think Congresswoman Maloney's interest is superficial -- why else would she keep sponsoring the same bill over and over? If she really wanted to get something done for the Northern Rockies, wouldn't she be learning from these experiences and coming up with new strategies?
Stomp your foot and say it's unfair and un-democratic for a handful of rednecks out here to defeat the will of the people, if you want.
Keep in mind, though, that our system of government isn't a pure democracy, but a democracy that's structured to keep 50.1 percent of the people from running roughshod over 49.9.
The Senate -- giving 935,000 Montanans the same weight as 36 million Californians -- is part of that machinery. If NREPA doesn't die in committee, it will die in the Senate. Why? Because the symbolic politics of Baucus and Tester throwing in with a Manhattan-sponsored public lands bill is too risky (especially for Max). And that's saying nothing of the Senators from the other states affected.
If there's going to be a wilderness bill out here, it's going to come from here, and be sponsored by our elected representatives.
It seems fairly obvious -- after 14 years of doing the same ineffective thing -- that doing NREPA state-by-state is an alternative worth trying. Keep your eyes on the prize: the land, not a particular bill with a particular name sponsored by a particular organization.
Public land that is not protected has a way of becoming private (or leased). Bitterrooter: You say you are in favor of some wilderness expansion? What? One percent too much for ya? Have you looked at the map of proposed areas?
Next is there even any oil in the area? How much? Were they afraid of these same things during the Clinton Administration when they were introducing the same bills?
What environmental groups are supporting this? How much have they contributed to this group?
Exactly what activities for the area have been proposed that locals do not want, and where? Have they objected during the comment period?
Sorry, but I am very sceptical about any politician who promises to save nice round millions by eliminating a portion of the locals from the area.
The animals I have seen disappearing are the elk and moose who have fallen prey to another great environmental idea.
"we still wouldn’t be close to any definition of balance because at the end of the day, 95 percent or more of our federal lands will be non-wilderness."
This is a widely touted but completely misleading figure. The truth is that, of the entire U.S. land base including downtown L.A. and Manhattan, roughly 4% is currently designated as wilderness (the total land base includes both federal, state, and private lands).
However, if you compute the total amount of federal lands that are currently designated as wilderness (approx. 107 million acres) you'll find that 18-19% of all federal lands are currently designated wilderness. This makes our National Wilderness Preservation System the largest protected-area System in the world. It is larger than our National Park System (83 million acres) and larger than our National Wildlife Refuge System (92 million acres), altho of course it includes lands within both of these other Systems.
I work for a conservation organization that is dedicated to protecting wilderness, and am impatient when other conservationists disingenuously attempt to downplay what the conservation community has actually accomplished over the last 42 years in terms of designating wilderness. Not that there isn't more work to do, but I favor maintaining accuracy in our perspective.
All this bill does is set aside these areas to always remain as they are today. This means that they cannot be sold by this administration, or any other at a later date, in some scheme to raise money. That is how public lands BECOME private. They cannot be leased for oil and gas exploration. That is how public lands become privatized. Locals would not be "excluded" from using these areas. They will be able to continue hunting, fishing and camping in these areas as they always have. Why don't you voice your REAL objection? You are afraid that some ranchers MIGHT lose their grazing rights. I know that many wilderness areas around the country DO allow grazing in some areas, so that might or might not be an issue. Would you support this bill if current grazing allotments were Grandfathered?
Nothing will cause the disappearance of wildlife faster than the disappearance of habitat. I spent about ten years living in a National Forest in California. During that entire time I saw a grand total of about three deer and one black bear (lots of birds and squirrels and an occasional coyote).
I often wondered how much different it might have been if farsighted individuals 50 or 100 years ago had set aside more areas such as these?!
Those of us who live in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho live in the middle of a wonderful treasure. Let's not lose it the way California and so many other states have. This bill may not be perfect, but it may well be the only way to insure that our grandchildren have at least a substantial piece of that treasure left when we turn it over to them.
I would want to know a whole bunch more about the area and how it is presently used, and what use has been proposed before I would be in favor of tying it up for only those who can afford a great deal of time to use it.
And fight I will.
Lets leave thse kind of decisions at the state level.I forgot you azzkittens need the federal government to dictate how things happen here. You New Westers stay the fug in Montana.
I just hope we can somehow have the debate and make the decision instead of the decades more of status quo, which is the inch by inch erosion of our last roadless lands. This bill can do that.
The only conceivable answer for people who are capable of understanding the implications of the pressures of what is cynically referred to as "development", of population growth, of the decline of quality in air and both quality and quantity in water, of the ongoing devastation in species extinction, both animal and botanic, is that of course it should.
All the ravings and maunderings of threatened neanderthals and fulminating defectives, along with the special pleadings of that sad and tiny minority whose wages are tied to the piracy of corporate resource extraction or welfare farming and ranching, have no least relevance to the fundamental ecological question.
Wake up, professional rednecks and Welfare Corporados: the West is no longer the province of loggers, cowboys and miners, with the odd Simplot or Copper King overseeing their little lives. And that which remains after two hundred years of ferocious wastage and insouciant abuse needs to be protected FOR you and FROM you, for the bounty it still offers you and all Americans in clean air, fresh water, forest, animas and fish, and matchless beauty that heals even the coarsest souls.
Who gives a Texas rat's ass who introduces the bill? If the sold- out throwbacks and corporate pimps who form the bulk of the West's Federal delegations haven't got the vision and balls to do it, then let them run for the train when it's leaving the yard.
NREPA had nearly two hundred supporters in the worst House of Representatives since the depths of Reconstruction, and arguably ever. Watch what happens this time around, doubters.
Westerners are slowly, reluctantly, but surely beginning to waken to what is best for them and their region, and preserving the majesty and integrity of their still vast and wondrous wild country, if they can do it, is a major part of what will make their future one to be envied by the world.
Well done, Bill. A fair and honest look at NREPA and its promise. Thanks.
Paul Edwards
(I live, work, and vote in Montana, by the way)
The feds will no longer pay PLT to the states so it is going to be aup to other taxpayers within the states having lots of federal land to make up the difference. Should that not give those taxpayers at least some extra say?
Who can say with any certainty that roads into the forests are more harmful overall than the tons of human waste left behind by hikers? Are there any studies showing the amount of weeds carried from place to place by hiking boots versus those carried on dirt roads by wheeled vehicles?
The forests should be available to families except in extraordiary circumstances, never should it be the rule that only certain elites can use them. The environmental groups are rapidly becoming the defacto feudal lords of days long gone.
I guess the people who live in these areas like you and me should decide on a case by case basis. I'm sure Carolyn Maloney doesn't have a clue as how this would affect the Mountain ranges mentioned above.
"Who can say with any certainty that roads into the forest are more harmful than tons of human waste left behind by hikers?" Anyone who spends more than 30 second thinking about it. Are you claiming that ATV riders don't poop? Is 100 decibels of engine noise something you hear when a hiker climbs a slope? When was the last report of a hiker hitting and killing an elk or bear?
Well, if the riders don't poop, their machines sure do -- about 20 times the amount of air-polluting emissions than a car built the same year. Add in the constant damage to road surfaces from knobby tires and the tracking of weeds from one location to another and you have a mess that could not occur if only foot-traffic were allowed.
And just how are environmental groups becoming lords of anything? They don't own any larger a share of federal lands than you do. Put away the crying towel because no one is buying your victim act.
If you are lucky enough to live and work in the northern Rockies, you already enjoy more open space than 99 percent of Americans who live east of the Mississippi River. It's a big sky -- and bluer than you seem to realize, Marion.
I am confused. The article says:
As announced in a companion article, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) will, with at least 187 co-sponsors, introduce the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act of 2007 (NREPA), which would designate as Wilderness most of the remaining roadless lands in the Northern Rockies, mostly in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, but edging into far eastern Oregon and Washington.
i.e. NREPA includes ONLY roadless areas. So is the article wrong, or is the road you are referring to illegal?
Thanks,
Todd
Just because a road exists does not mean it won't be plowed under to accommodate those who want the forest to themselves. I happen to feel it is very greedy to insist that the very best places, that lots of folks would enjoy, must be kept absolutely silent for those can afford to walk in. If silence is a priority go where no one else wants to go, don't try to lock others out of the nice places.
I am lucky enough to have spent a lifetime in the west, but it is a tough country to make a living and survive in, and we would like to share in the lands around us even if we do not have prolonged vacations.
There a many roads within these proposed wilderness areas. Specifically, there is a scenic byway that goes south out of Wise River, MT directly through the Pioneer and Elkhorn mountains. This road goes through the proposed "new Wilderness". In addition, I guess there going to have to close Skalkaho Pass between Hamilton and Philipsburg. All proposed wilderness there.
The map at the website shows wilderness. My forest service maps show accessible roads that are NOT illegal.
Read your quote again and pay attention to the part the says "which would designate as Wilderness most of the remaining roadless lands". It should read "which would designate as Wilderness most of the remaining roadless lands plus a lot more with roads." No where does it say about including only lands that are roadless.
Thanks,
Michael
The areas I mentioned above will not be clear cut, bulldozed, or sold. These are Forest Service Lands that fall under management plans. On the merits, this bill will close currently accessible lands to the people that do not have the physical ability to access them. I can't believe that nobody can see Marions' point. There are a lot of people that do not have the time or ability to get into these areas if they become Wilderness.
Don't bet on "locals" being able to prevent development in your favorite hunting or camping area. That is exactly what so many threads on the internet are all about: how locals often have little choice. Outside money comes in and guess what? You're looking for a new place to hunt! Protect it, save it! While we still can!
Wilderness shouldn’t be served up in fast food packaging, if you want that go to Yellowstone. People need wild spaces in their daily lives but that isn’t the role of Wilderness or Roadless Areas that’s the role of natural parks in or near towns and cities.
The loudest descent about this is coming from those who take wild spaces for granted as if they are not national treasures. Each square foot of wilderness is a priceless treasure and we are lucky as a nation to have ever one, the more the better.
The Wilderness Act needs to be changed so it allows public access and use while still protecting the land.
Same self centered thinking that makes people want all of the land around where their home is declared off limits to building, "protected".
Silence, or solitude, is an essential element of wilderness. The reason the "very best places" must remain silent is to preserve their wilderness character. Their inaccessability preserves their high quality. The Wilderness Act limits human use precisely to maintain high quality. Quality is key to human survival. Wilderness has a right to exist regardless of our recreational "needs" and wants. Without it, humans have nowhere left to experience nature unaltered by man's influence.
"...all of that bs". There is no doubt that the Wilderness Act is designed to restrict uses on land against wholly inconsistent uses in order to place a high value on that land in its natural state as a matter of public policy. In this instance the land selected is designed to save eco systems to preserve bio diversity which some scientists believe is a more significant concern for the survival of your species than other ill effects of overpopulation like global warming. You should really try to go for a hike by yourself in the wilderness before you discount the high value your society and the rest of us place on it. You will likely learn something about the land, yourself and your fellow citizens.
But no one is keeping you from experiencing the this land.
Your own ignorance is locking you out. No one else is.
If it is truly the welfare of the forests that you folks are advocating, then the forests should be closed to everyone. Refusing access to many so a few can have absolute quiet is only catering to the few, it does nothing for the forests.
With clarity of thought
And every word of * LOGIC *
Spoken to those who have naught.
To those who fail to open eyes,
To those not searching FACT,
She braves the storms with logic and
With tolerance they've lacked.
Widen vistas, listen up!!!
Logic's on HER side.
Because you don't explore it ALL,
Ain't HER you should deride!!!
HANG IN THERE MARION!!!
*Illegitimi non Carborundum* ;-)
Your family can't walk? I'm Elite because I can walk? Wow another attribute to add to reading and speaking in complete sentences. I think walking may be all alot of folks have in common. I think you should just come out and say that your idea of enjoying public lands means driving on them. Sounds like YOU 'want the forest all to yourself' and YOU are the one with the 'self centered thought process'.
People want Wilderness for it's own sake. Try to warp you head around that. I know it's tough, b/c evidently it's all about you and all these 'families" out there without legs or whatever the hell their problem is. Must be hard to drive..... controls on the steering wheel or something.......
If * YOU * are able to read in complete sentences, may I suggest that you start with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section located on the Internet at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cguide.htm and maybe then you can actually LEARN something about "... all these 'families' out there without legs or whatever the hell their problem is."
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. It also applies to the United States Congress.
Go figure ... amazing, is it not??! I have no idea if it was "some damned Republican" or "some damned Democrat" that came up with that ridiculous idea. But there it IS and that we MUST ... and that we SHOULD, with or without a LAW or instruction to do so by the ADA.
And to answer your question:
YES ... you most certainly ARE Elite because you can walk; and,
YES ... it MOST certainly "Must be hard to drive..... controls on the steering wheel or something.... ".
Perhaps the laws would be fewer and the world less "interesting" without such comments ... dunno ... but I, for one, find them both amazing and appalling.
I'm with you. NREPA is a good bill that will protect the Montana that we love. I'm a local and I vote and spend a lot of money in the local economy. I love wilderness and I'm not an elitist. In fact, I left home with nothing but a big plastic bag of clothes when I was 18, no inheritance, nothing, and didn't get my first vehicle until I was 27. I have a lot of money to spend now because I sacrificed a lot, nearly starved, for many years working my way through nine very long years of college, getting a useful education, and then working many long overtime hours establishing my professional credentials.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 and all subsequent designation legislation does NOT prohibit the use of wheelchairs. Folks in wheelchairs visit Wilderness on a regular basis.
Woody
Keep up the good fight Marion.